Larry Ellison was one of the more entertaining speakers at this year's All Things Digital conference, and it's no wonder why. He's a Silicon Valley institution—the longest-reigning leader of any major tech company, heading up Oracle since 1977—and he's got a sense of humor, to boot. Ellison went on, at animated length, about his company's legal battles with Google, HP, and SAP—the kind of sensitive topics that CEOs don't often hold forth about.

When it came to describing Oracle's biggest setback—its recent losses in a copyright and patent lawsuit against Google—Ellison put a wildly positive spin on it all, blowing off his patent loss and suggesting that the inconclusive copyright trial was actually a win.

About halfway through her chat with Ellison, moderator Kara Swisher brought up the fact that Oracle had ongoing legal spats with no less than three big tech companies—SAP and Hewlett-Packard, in addition to Google. "Which one would you like to discuss?" she asked.

"Well, none of them," said Ellison. "They're all being litigated right now."

Then Ellison went ahead and spoke, at some length, about all three of the cases. He started with Google.

"I wouldn't describe it as a patent case," he said of that lawsuit, glossing over Oracle's total loss in the trial's patent phase. "It's really a copyright case."

"Are you going to appeal it?" Swisher asked.

Ellison didn't answer directly, but offered an interpretation of what had happened in his giant lawsuit against Google that seemed almost like a denial of the reality.

"We won on infringement," Ellison said, in what was essentially his final comment on the Google case. "The jury found that Google infringed our copyrights. I don't want to go into a lot of detail. The important part of the case is about copyrights and copyrightability of software. When the litigation is over, I'll be happy to talk about it."

Ellison's statement is technically true; the jury did find that Google infringed Oracle copyrights but split on fair use. Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the case, made clear that meant there was "zero liability" for Google. Still, at the time, it looked like it may have been almost a win for Oracle.

However, an interview with the jury foreman after the case was over showed that the jury felt driven to the infringement conclusion because of the judge's instructions. Overall, the jury was split 9-3 in Google's favor during the copyright trial--and was unanimously in Google's favor on the patent issues.

Ellison jokes about other legal battles with HP, SAP

Ellison, who testified at the Oracle v. Google trial, was keener to talk about other legal battles. He's on the defense in a courtroom spat with Hewlett-Packard, which sued over Oracle's decision to stop making its database software for HP's Itanium servers. Jury selection in that case begins tomorrow.
"HP says we have a contractual obligation to port to Itanium, and we don't think that's true," said Ellison. "So we're going to court, and a judge will decide."

The Itanium contract case is the second high-profile lawsuit HP has brought against Oracle recently. In 2010, HP sued Oracle for hiring its ex-CEO Mark Hurd, saying he would divulge trade secrets. That lawsuit settled within two weeks.

Still, Ellison was at least somewhat diplomatic with HP, offering some kind words for the company's new CEO, Meg Whitman.

"I wish Meg nothing but the best," said Ellison. "I like HP. I think HP is an icon. Those of us raised in the Valley think of Bill Hewlett and David Packard as role models. HP has lots of great people."

When it came to SAP and its former head Leo Apotheker—who later went to HP—Ellison didn't have anything nice to say, but he certainly wasn't going to say nothing at all. "You know, SAP pleaded guilty to criminal theft of our software," he said. When HP decided to fire Mark Hurd and bring Apotheker on board, it "was the best idea since the Apple board fired Steve Jobs," he quipped.

Oracle sued SAP over that stolen software and won a $1.3 billion jury verdict in 2010. A judge lowered the damages to $272 million, which spurred Oracle to demand a new trial.

Ellison went on to describe Apotheker's behavior in darker, almost criminal, terms.

"We subpoenaed him for the SAP trial, and then he was on the lam. Where was Leo, lay-oh?" asked Ellison, playing on alternate pronunciations of Apotheker's name. "We'll take either one of them! The HP board sent him to Bolivia to talk to customers, then to Mongolia—just out of reach of that federal subpoena. The board finally figured out, you know, we should have left Leo in Mongolia."
After Ellison wrapped up his diatribe against Oracle's legal foes—well received by the crowd—Swisher asked him: "What keeps you going?"

"Red bull," answered Ellison.

Meanwhile in court: Oracle loses final longshot on patent arguments

Ellison's comments on the case came as Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the Oracle v. Google litigation, rebuffed an attempt by Oracle's lawyers to overturn the jury's patent verdict. In an order [PDF] issued this afternoon, he rejected Oracle's arguments.

Dealing with such motions to overturn a jury verdict is a standard coda to many intellectual property cases, and don't usually result in jury verdicts being thrown out. However, this case will very likely be appealed by Oracle, so this motion may lay the groundwork for some of the company's arguments at the appellate level.

72 Reader Comments

When HP decided to fire Mark Hurd and bring Apotheker on board, it "was the best idea since the Apple board fired Steve Jobs," he quipped.

In an article posted here not to long ago (from one person's perspective) firing Steve Jobs was probably the best thing that happened to apple. It forced him to re-evaluate himself and grow into the CEO that brought apple's best years.

If you're going to be pedantic about a VERY common (and often accepted) way of making a singular acronym plural, at least have the good grace to not fuck up your own post. Much like the use of acronym to refer to any initialism.

EDIT:Code tag used to preserve your post fail without your fail screwing up my own quote.

Well-known fact: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were very good friends, Steve Jobs was a megalomaniac and declared war on Android, swearing to destroy it.

It's been suggested from the start that "finishing what Steve started" was a major motivating factor in this litigation, due to that relationship.

I think their behaviour is better explained by the theory that they both just enjoy being a---holes.

Not relevant to what you quoted. I merely stated a fact: they were close friends, and it's been repeatedly suggested that the crusade against Google is due, at least in part, to that friendship. Whether it's a good explanation or not, or the presence or absence of a better explanation, doesn't change those facts.

"the kind of sensitive topics that CEO's don't often hold forth about."

*grumble*apostrophe*grumble*

Sorry for letting the inner pedant out.

sporkwitch wrote:

If you're going to be pedantic about a VERY common (and often accepted) way of making a singular acronym plural, at least have the good grace to not fuck up your own post. Much like the use of acronym to refer to any initialism.

Watching this guy is just incredibly entertaining. This is the closest we'll ever get to watching a sit-down interview with a comic book villain. Everything he does makes perfect sense in his head, I'm sure.

"the kind of sensitive topics that CEO's don't often hold forth about."

*grumble*apostrophe*grumble*

Sorry for letting the inner pedant out.

sporkwitch wrote:

If you're going to be pedantic about a VERY common (and often accepted) way of making a singular acronym plural, at least have the good grace to not fuck up your own post. Much like the use of acronym to refer to any initialism.

Well-known fact: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were very good friends, Steve Jobs was a megalomaniac and declared war on Android, swearing to destroy it.

It's been suggested from the start that "finishing what Steve started" was a major motivating factor in this litigation, due to that relationship.

I think their behaviour is better explained by the theory that they both just enjoy being a---holes.

Not relevant to what you quoted. I merely stated a fact: they were close friends, and it's been repeatedly suggested that the crusade against Google is due, at least in part, to that friendship. Whether it's a good explanation or not, or the presence or absence of a better explanation, doesn't change those facts.

I think the fact that both are a--holes, and enjoy being so, is a major factor in one a--hole taking up the banner of another a--hole. Friendship only goes so far toward doing something costly and potentially damaging to your company: if you're friends and share the same asshole tendencies, the likelihood of following up a friends asshole attitude is pretty normal. A simple friendship isn't enough to commit that kind of resource "just for memories". These guys are also businessmen - shitstains in suits, perhaps, but still businessmen - and friendship doesn't equal millions in public lawsuits to a businessman.

Well-known fact: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were very good friends, Steve Jobs was a megalomaniac and declared war on Android, swearing to destroy it.

It's been suggested from the start that "finishing what Steve started" was a major motivating factor in this litigation, due to that relationship.

I think their behaviour is better explained by the theory that they both just enjoy being a---holes.

Not relevant to what you quoted. I merely stated a fact: they were close friends, and it's been repeatedly suggested that the crusade against Google is due, at least in part, to that friendship. Whether it's a good explanation or not, or the presence or absence of a better explanation, doesn't change those facts.

I think the fact that both are a--holes, and enjoy being so, is a major factor in one a--hole taking up the banner of another a--hole. Friendship only goes so far toward doing something costly and potentially damaging to your company: if you're friends and share the same asshole tendencies, the likelihood of following up a friends asshole attitude is pretty normal. A simple friendship isn't enough to commit that kind of resource "just for memories". These guys are also businessmen - shitstains in suits, perhaps, but still businessmen - and friendship doesn't equal millions in public lawsuits to a businessman.

It still irrelevant to my statement of fact.

As to businessmen, it wouldn't be the first time a poor business decision was made based on less-than-sound reasoning. Just look at Lightsquared lol

Maybe a bit, but he does have balls of brass. And he's quite refreshing for a CEO. Usually CEO's are all politically correct, they talk alot without saying anything (just watch Mike Lazardis for example), don't mention the competition... Then we have Ellison who has no problems trash-talking the competition. He's ruthless, cunning and smart. And yes, a bit insane.

Yeah, he's the closest we have to a insane genius bent on world domination. I just wish he had a white cat on his lap while he was talking at the conference.

Larry Ellison seems to be as somebody who was very lucky that the field he was in had such growth potential. It also seems like he has created this "Superman" persona which allows him to make some really stupid mistakes. I am not talking "Silverage" Superman either, I am talking about perhaps the evil clone of Superman, or the Superman from the reality where he killed Lex Luthor.

The point is if Larry Ellison made these types of statements 20 years ago Oracle would be nothing. I missed the entire raise of Oracle because of my age, by the time I got a computer, Microsoft ruled pretty much every market ( cerca 1992 ). This industry will forgive just about anything, and the only thing that keeps Larry Ellison CEO of Oracle is the fact he made hundreds of right decisions in the past.

20 years later after my first computer I am now forced to learned Oracle's operating system. I never thought when I was 10 I would do anything other then play SimCity 2000.

Well-known fact: Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were very good friends, Steve Jobs was a megalomaniac and declared war on Android, swearing to destroy it.

It's been suggested from the start that "finishing what Steve started" was a major motivating factor in this litigation, due to that relationship.

I think their behaviour is better explained by the theory that they both just enjoy being a---holes.

Not relevant to what you quoted. I merely stated a fact: they were close friends, and it's been repeatedly suggested that the crusade against Google is due, at least in part, to that friendship. Whether it's a good explanation or not, or the presence or absence of a better explanation, doesn't change those facts.

I think the fact that both are a--holes, and enjoy being so, is a major factor in one a--hole taking up the banner of another a--hole. Friendship only goes so far toward doing something costly and potentially damaging to your company: if you're friends and share the same asshole tendencies, the likelihood of following up a friends asshole attitude is pretty normal. A simple friendship isn't enough to commit that kind of resource "just for memories". These guys are also businessmen - shitstains in suits, perhaps, but still businessmen - and friendship doesn't equal millions in public lawsuits to a businessman.

It still irrelevant to my statement of fact.

As to businessmen, it wouldn't be the first time a poor business decision was made based on less-than-sound reasoning. Just look at Lightsquared lol

Well Lighsquared's reasoning wasn't that unsound they reasoned that thanksgiving was where it was and would blow a hole in the time alloted for discourse.

Pretty sure if the USAF hadn't said 'lol, but no really, don't do that' the waver would have becoem entrenched and Lightsquared would have gone ahead.

Moral of the story, don't get into bed with one government department if a more powerfull one is still against you.

He might be a giant turd and a large-type slimeball, but at least he's honest about it. Kind of reminds me of Bush and Cheney. They might have been some of the worst people on the planet in their time, but they certainly weren't hiding that fact.

"the kind of sensitive topics that CEO's don't often hold forth about."

*grumble*apostrophe*grumble*

Sorry for letting the inner pedant out.

sporkwitch wrote:

If you're going to be pedantic about a VERY common (and often accepted) way of making a singular acronym plural, at least have the good grace to not fuck up your own post. Much like the use of acronym to refer to any initialism.

I have not seen Larry being so humble for a long time and being a proper human with real life emotions and just as normal as the other guy. Was it Ed that makes Larry so mellow ?. Larry looks great for his age.

So we know Larry does not like pea-cocks!. Good video. Oh, Ed looks like a young Clapton.

"the kind of sensitive topics that CEO's don't often hold forth about."

*grumble*apostrophe*grumble*

Sorry for letting the inner pedant out.

sporkwitch wrote:

If you're going to be pedantic about a VERY common (and often accepted) way of making a singular acronym plural, at least have the good grace to not fuck up your own post. Much like the use of acronym to refer to any initialism.